Skip to content

Conversation

@FranciscoNabas
Copy link

The default retention period for change tracking on MS SQL Server is 2 days, but for the configuration manager, it should always be 5 days. The places where I got this info from:

  • When installing a site server, the database auto cleanup retention period is 5 days.
  • When looking the code for the stored procedure 'spDiagChangeTracking', while gathering change tracking information we can see a comment saying that for SCCM it should always be 5 days.

image

  • While troubleshooting a change tracking issue, I've set the retention for two days, and the auto cleanup couldn't keep up.

I understand that while troubleshooting performance issues, cleaning the change tracking information up to 2 days can improve performance, however this can be misleading, since this query will always return 'there is change tracking backlog, please contact Microsoft support'. Cleaning more change tracking than default can also mask the real cause for performance issues.

Thank you!

The default retention period for change tracking on MS SQL Server is 2 days, but for the configuration manager, it should always be 5 days.
The places where I got this info from:
 - When installing a site server, the database auto cleanup retention period is 5 days.
 - When looking the code for the stored procedure 'spDiagChangeTracking', while gathering change tracking information we can see a comment saying that for SCCM it should always be 5 days (screen shot will be included in the PR).
 - While troubleshooting a change tracking issue, I've set the retention for two days, and the auto cleanup couldn't keep up.

I understand that while troubleshooting performance issues, cleaning the change tracking information up to 2 days can improve performance, however this can be misleading, since this query will always return 'there is change tracking backlog, please contact Microsoft support'.
Cleaning more change tracking than default can also mask the real cause for performance issues.

Thank you!
@prmerger-automator
Copy link
Contributor

@FranciscoNabas : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

@prmerger-automator
Copy link
Contributor

@FranciscoNabas : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

@learn-build-service-prod
Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit f0bc9a9:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
memdocs/configmgr/core/servers/manage/replication/sql-performance.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

@Banreet
Copy link
Contributor

Banreet commented May 4, 2023

#sign-off

@prmerger-automator
Copy link
Contributor

@FranciscoNabas : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

@MandiOhlinger
Copy link
Contributor

@FranciscoNabas Hi Francisco - This PR has a merge conflict. If it's still needed, can you create a new pull request? We want to make sure you get credit.

@MandiOhlinger MandiOhlinger added the doc-wont-fix Doc issue that doesn't meet the bar to fix label Dec 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants